I was asked the other day about what I believed the internet, and connectivity’s, greatest impact on business was.

After chuckling that there was no one thing and we didn’t have enough time to talk about all the aspects that have impacted us … I did suggest one thing we don’t talk about which has a larger ripple effect on the future of business – connectivity’s impact on decision making and how we teach decision making.

There are a couple of other sociological insidious things seeping into organizational culture – discouragement of risk taking, particularly among younger employees, ‘flat’ organizations which tend to only put the senior decision makers closer to actual tactical decisions and things like that.

But what connectivity has done is make the most experienced decision makers more available 24/7 and younger people more likely to “send them a quick text asking them what to do” or an email with the question at hand … so that the younger person doesn’t have to make the decision. This translates into less decision making experience, less real ‘outcome of decision experience’ as well as all the critical thinking that gets crammed into one’s head when forced to make some decision <which always takes on some extraordinary size & significance when younger and less experienced>.

I believe this is a real issue.

In fact … I believed it was so important I googled it to do some research for this post.

‘how connectivity has killed decision making’ … 0 results.

how the internet has killed decision making’ … 0 results on the topic … most on ‘overthinking’ or ‘Information overload is killing our ability to make decisions’

I even tried ‘how the smartphone has killed decision making’ and got zilch other than some crap about how ‘smartphones are destroying a generation’ and shit like that.

Lets be clear.

This isn’t about ‘distractions’ or ‘short attention span’ this is about circumventing critical decision making skills through easy connectivity to someone who can make the decision <instead of you>.

And I found it extremely odd that there is nothing obvious in terms of the discussion online because society views technology through an extremely critical eye on perceptions of how it forms, or doesn’t form, critical thinking skills. And nowhere is the conflict more apparent than in the business world where in a seemingly non-stop 24/7 world where we deem “speed” as having some absurd value above anything else we force more and more decisions ‘up’ in an organization.

Let me tell you how it worked in a disconnected world.

As an old guy we had no smartphones and computers weren’t chugging out hundreds of emails between employees all the time.

My bosses sat with other bosses in some high falutin’ section of the office space <most often with doors and big desks> and I didn’t have easy access to my bosses because … well … they were not within shouting distance and they had their own shit to do.

I had team members, clients and other departments who always needed answers so they could do shit and make some progress <to meet deadlines that I had inevitably placed on them> and, when they needed a decision, 90+% of the time they didn’t want me hanging up the phone saying “I will get back to you after I speak to ‘x’ person.”

And many times I was out of town in meetings and … well … decisions had to be made.

In this disconnected world 25 year old Bruce had to make some decisions … hopefully some good ones.

This didn’t mean that afterwards I didn’t sit there going … “fuck me, was that the right thing to do?” … because I did.

So in that disconnected world I would have to get up when I had a free minute and track down my boss and walk them through what was going to happen because I had made some decision.

I could go to Pat, who would sometimes be laying on his back under his desk looking at a world map he had taped under his desk thinking <claiming it gave him a different view of the world>, who would 99% of the time asking me why I thought it was the right decision, what other things we could have considered and start tearing apart the decision to better understand it.

I could go to Charlie who would 99% of the time go ‘okay’ … and then in a burst of energy start talking about what we could do now, a kind of “what’s next attitude” now that the decision had been made.

I could go to Beth who would always, always, just listen … and then start talking about how we could follow up with some research, or data, or support so that <in her words> “the decision doesn’t get killed by someone else’s opinions.”

I could go to any number of other bosses throughout my younger years and discuss a decision thatIhad made after the fact.

In a disconnected world a less experienced person was demanded to assume some responsibility.

The bottom line it was my decision and I had to live with it. I didn’t have a shitload of bosses who tried to kill the decision but rather seemed to accept it, warts & all, and figure out how to move forward from it.

Now.

A shitload of people may argue that in a connected world better decisions are made <slightly> faster <assuming you can reach the decision maker in some timely fashion> therefore business has benefited.

They may be partially right.

But I would argue 3 things:

<1> Most decisions made at a lower more tactical, or less strategically influential, level are not really business killers nor are they even ‘not fixable’,

<2> by delegating responsibility for a decision ‘upwards’ … someone never learns the critical thinking necessary, sometimes under time duress, nor the burden of responsibility,

<3> and ability to bear burden of responsibility is actually an indicator of future leadership skills.

I have gone on ad nausea over the years with regard to our short term paranoia within the business world and how it is killing us … and this ‘delegate decisions upwards because connectivity permits it’ is just one additional example.

Look.

The people who have the most confidence in their decision making skills, unless they are narcissistic asshats, are the ones with most experience in making decisions. And examining decisions made by someone else <which is what a younger person does if a more senior person makes a decision> is not even close to the actual experience of running the mental gauntlet of making the decision yourself … and understanding he burden of responsibility you assume by doing so.

By outsourcing our decisions to more experienced people, or even the false ‘certainty’ in data, we cheat ourselves.

We are left responding rather than thinking creatively, critically and autonomously.

And maybe worse we don’t give ourselves the opportunity to unlearn what we believe we have learned <which truly can only happen through trial & error>.

Gut feelings, and instincts, or even data … are not the best tools for an uncertain world … they only offer the illusion of certainty. The business world is a complex world with thousands of decisions and a relentless onslaught of uncertainty.

About the only thing to maneuver your way through all of this complexity & uncertainty is by using the skill of critical thinking.

When we deny people the challenge of thinking critically, evaluating situations, making your own decisions and bearing the burden of responsibility we are heading towards a future where future manager will lack the cognitive ability, and critical thinking skills, to effectively think and make good decisions.

While I have several worries with regard to what technology and connectivity is doing to our business world … this is one we do not discuss enough if we are truly interested in the next generation of business people to be better than us.

“Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess.

An ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.

Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform.

Man has the power to act as his own destroyer–and that is the way he has acted through most of history.”

―

Ayn Rand

==============

Ok.

Discussing business leadership is … well … interesting.

Its also <slightly> interesting I used an Ayn Rand quote to open a thought on business leadership.

Why?

Almost everything Rand espoused focused on the individual and self-interest … and leadership inherently focuses on the group and ‘making the tide rise higher for all … sometimes at the expense of a higher one.”

In addition … <simplistically> the central thesis of Rand’s philosophy is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive.

I am no going invest a lot of time on Rand’s thinking <of which I have mixed feelings about> but because I speak to many business leaders the balance of ‘business democracy, organizational culture, and business autocracy, i.e., someone has to make a decision at some point and organizational consensus is most likely not the most effective way to generate good decisions, I will spend a moment on Rand.

In my eyes, far too often, Americans tie the Rand philosophy of ‘supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest’ to a simplistic version of core American ideals: individual freedoms & hard work. The whole premise is based on the promise a better world is available if people can simply pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. That thought is usually followed by “this works because everyone is simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.”

Unfortunately what this ignores is a successful organization’s ultimate mission: “e pluribus unim” <out of many one>.

Unfortunately what this ignores is successful cultures typically exhibit a ‘twitch muscle’ which automatically makes 95% of people to find greater satisfaction in contributing to ‘the team’ rather than solely finding individual success.

All of this matters when discussing business leadership and leading organizations.

Now.

That said.

I come back to a key line in the opening quote: an ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct.

In a world in which we tend to want to oversimplify things far too often “business instincts” get stripped of any context or the rich & royal hues most typically associated with ‘good business instincts.’ We also strip leadership down to its barest and far too often suggest the importance of ‘’good business instincts’ as some superior skill <and instincts are not a skill but an attribute> inherent in good leadership.

I would suggest we would be much better off stripping leadership down to not one thing but rather discussing a backbone which makes leadership stand tall.

Look.

A shitload of people can lead.

An even larger shitload of people think they can lead.

And even smaller shitload of people can actually lead well.

And while there are a shitload of well written and thoughtful piece on business leadership characteristics I would suggest that all business leadership often comes down to your ‘backbone’ of actual skills with regard to three things: developing an effective vision, having a consistent business philosophy <business acumen> & instincts.

Many leaders have some skill in one of these three, some actually are good at two out of the three but the best leaders are good at all three <with some extraordinary skill at either the visionary or instincts>.

I point out the vision and instincts aspects because it is that ‘dance’ which … well … can make a business dance. Some people talk about strategy & tactics but this is a little different. This is kind of a step up from that.

This is kind of like being able to envision the 5 lane highway which leads to a destination you kind of envision and then actually have the instincts which enable you to instinctually shift lanes, shift speeds and avoid everyone else on the highway in the moments that matter.

Suffice it to say … working with someone who understands, and can manage to, vision and someone who has good instincts is fairly rare — and all three even rarer.

By the way, as I have written before … most people who vocally espouse the fact <belief> they have good instincts tend to have shitty instincts. In fact … I could generalize relatively safely by suggesting anyone who verbalizes they have good instincts … most likely, in reality, do not have good instincts <good instinctual leaders & decision makers tend to have the humility to have an innate sense to keep their mouths shut about any instinctual behavior and focus on verbalizing functional abilities to do shit in certain situations>.

Anyway.

Someone can actually be a pretty good leader and not be very good at all these things.

For example … one of my best bosses wasn’t particularly good at the vision aspect but had an incredibly strong sense of ‘right versus wrong’ with regard to business philosophy and excellent instincts which tended to permit a shitload of progress <if not particularly visionary progress>. I would note he was pretty good at hiring some people who were visionary and combined with what he was good at he had a nice ability <albeit sometimes a lite too pragmatic> to tighten some loose vision and … well … get shit done.

For example … one of my best bosses was an incredible visionary with an excellent ability to set everyone’s sights on the ‘horizon’ coupled with a strong business philosophy of “this is the kind of shit we will do and how we will conduct ourselves in doing it” he could get people focused and emotionally connected with what they had to do. However … his instincts were not so hot. I would note he had a nice ability to surround himself with people with good instincts <maybe not enough but some key people> which permitted him to pick out what to do from options resented by good instinctual managers rather than have to depend on his own instincts.

I imagine my point here is twofold <1> leaders who are good at all three of these things are not a dime a dozen and <2> the good leaders who are not good at all three of these things tend to recognize where they are a little weaker and are smart enough, and confident enough, to surround themselves with people who do have those skills.

I imagine the greater leadership philosophical point here is that good business leaders don’t really fight truth.

They see truth. Accept truth. And work within the parameters of truth.

==========================

“Stop opposing the truths.

The truth is truth no matter how you take it. It is not going to be changed for your inconvenience.”

―

Bikash Bhandari

==================

I point out truth because, of all things, leadership is reliant on a leader being able to see truth … and not just what they want to see.

I point out truth because, of all things, vision and instincts are driven more by truth, knowledge and ‘learning’, than by any nebulous “I have good instincts.’

I point out truth because, of all things, people actually have a natural inclination to work for the mutual benefit of an organization … they like to cooperate and collaborate … and truth has an incredible ability to bond together the largest most disparate organization as well as offer the initial burst of energy which pushes organizations forward out of trouble and toward something better when a leader actually makes a decision.

Be wary of the verbose ‘I am good at this’ leader because … well … as with anything else in Life & business … leaders have to be ‘good’ at a number of things not just some simplistic self-interest driven accolade.

“But I live elsewhere; it is only that the attraction of the human world is so immense, in an instant it can make one forget everything. Yet the attraction of my world too is strong.”

———-

Franz Kafka

============

So.

We talk a lot about the fact you cannot run away from things and far less about avoiding.

Yeah.

We talk about procrastination, which is a version of avoiding, but by avoiding I mean more along the lines of ‘ignoring’. Ignoring meant by that you see the world that you want to live in and conduct yourself in and go about ignoring the rest of the world doing your own thing. That is simply a different version of ignoring the real world. Simplistically you are assuming that the world & Life, in general, is indifferent to you therefore you will go unnoticed and just be able to do what you want to do <in a less unfettered way than if you actually remained engaged in the ‘other world’>.

Sounds good, doesn’t it?

I will say that avoiding some of the more undesirable aspects of Life & the world is pretty appealing. I would also suggest that avoiding some of the more undesirable aspects of Life & the world is pretty unrealistic.

There are a number of reasons but suffice it to say the overwhelming amount of information … even within the narrower walls of a business, is stunning. In the good old days even the worst of things worth avoiding <lies, conspiracies & implications> needed a little time to grow to some size that they became unavoidable. In today’s world those same things need seconds to gain some traction and minutes to grow to some size that they are unavoidable.

Today Google processes 61,000 search queries a second. That’s something like over 5 billion queries a day. This means information is everywhere … regardless whether it is good information or bad information.

Today 99% of all employees in business are online … and nearly 50% of the entire world is online <by 2020 more people are expected to have cell phones than running water>.

My point here is not about the challenges of being interconnected with so much information driven by technology but rather avoiding the world is just not a viable option <no matter how attractive it may seem>.

But please do not focus on technology. Technology is simply a means … without people technology is simply an unused ancient aqueduct. It is people which make avoiding impossible <technology just enables their ability to not be avoided more>.

My version of this is office politics. I hate office politics. Ok. Not just hate … I believe it is people wasting energy and all I want to do is to focus on getting the good shit done.

In a perfect world you can decide to avoid the real world of the office intrigue and just do what you believe is the right thing to do for the business and ‘do.’

It isn’t avoiding by ignoring it is more like avoiding by deciding to ride the parallel rail on a train track.

Unfortunately the business world, and the world in general, doesn’t work that way. No matter how much I may have wished to run on a parallel track it actually works more like an atom in which we all circle the business at some maddening speed in which you crisscross with even the shit you want to avoid.

This gets compounded in several ways … two of which would be:

Someone will always make what you are doing political even if it is not.

Office politics always contain people who play politics to meet their own ends. That is their means to do so. I believe these people can only see the world through the eyes of palace intrigue and political maneuvering therefore they filter everything done by everyone through a filter of “what do they have to gain by doing that.” That is their first filter level. Yeah. Eventually they may get to the more important “what does the business have to gain by doing that” but they almost always judge everything being done on a ‘who is a winner and loser’ scale

Someone will always find something nefarious in what you are doing.

I will not call this conspiracy thinking but, in general, a business culture more often than not breeds a sense that <a> everyone is out for themselves and <b> there is no such thing as a truly altruistic business motivation.

And while it would be naïve of me to suggest that avoiding those two thoughts as ‘stupid & untrue’ it is a little sad that those beliefs pretty much underlie every organization.

Please note, once again, the people aspect in everything I have noted. You may want to avoid things but you will find your destiny along the path you have chosen strewn with a shitload of people crossing your path … uninvited and many unwelcome.

I would suggest that Life is best lived by not ignoring shit and avoiding shit but rather stepping into the world an deal with it. Sometimes that may mean side stepping some of the shit you don’t want to deal with and sometimes that may mean bludgeoning your way over and through some of the shit you don’t want to deal with but if you do this you actually have some control over your own destiny. I say that because the problem with trying to maintain your Life on a parallel track, and knowing that inevitably it will be crossed by people & shit you had been purposefully avoiding, is that you will always be reacting to the bullshit rather than proactively facing it.

Look.

While you may not care about business or business politics my point is my point … you cannot avoid the world to conduct yourself in the ways & means you want to conduct yourself. You are stuck with the world, and in the world, whether you like it or not.

Oh.

The other thing you are stuck with is the fact whether you stay on the road engaged with the world or take another road to try and avoid it … well … you will meet your destiny.

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”

―

Leon C. Megginson

=============

“We’ll never survive!”

“Nonsense. You’re only saying that because no one ever has.”

―

The Princess Bride

==============

Ok.

Multiethnic People Forming Circle and Innovation Concept

Business can look a lot like war … well … at least the battles portion. That said … it seems like one could take some lessons from the military at the same time.

Today’s thought is about who you surround yourself with.

Business is rarely, let’s say maybe 90% of the time, not an individual effort but rather a team/group effort.

I dug around in notes I have jotted down and found a thought I had scribbled down, an almost verbatim thought from someone I respect, and consider a good friend, a Christian military veteran who received 12 decorations in 2 tours in Vietnam <including several Purple Hearts>:

“I am fairly sure I served with heathens, homosexuals and a number of others who my faith would consider sinners. I do know that being in the field highlights the flaws & sins of everyone which, in an odd way, brought us together as flawed Marines trying to survive. But, out there, there really was only one line, one distinction: those who were smart enough to help you stay alive and those who were stupid enough to get you killed. Nothing else mattered.”

The main thought?

“Smart enough to help you stay alive and stupid enough to get you killed.”

To be clear.

This doesn’t really mean someone intellectually or educated smart versus some less-than-intellectual “stupid’ person. This is about the ones who have the smarts & savviness to be alert to the things that need to be done, and can do them, to survive versus the ones who can be oblivious to the things that can kill you <and a shitload of faux intellectuals fall into the latter camp>.

That said.

That pretty much summarizes the business world.

Insert “idea” and … well … there you go … “smart enough to help your ideas stay alive and stupid enough to get your ideas killed.”

<I imagine I could also suggest the thought works for getting fired too>

The point is, in business, if you have any desire to do good things you know you will not be able to do it alone and you learn pretty quickly who you want around you … especially when bullets start flying.

You don’t care if they are black, white, yellow, green or any Crayola color you can think of.

You don’t care if they are gay, straight, lesbian, Furrie, zygote or a transgender.

You don’t care if they are Muslim, Jewish, atheist, pray to Zeus, Christian or Buddhist.

All you care about is surrounding yourself with those offering the highest likelihood of survival. You also care about insuring those around you represent the skills and savviness needed for survival.

Look.

Business certainly has aspects of battle and military strategy.

Especially so if you think about ideas and having winning ideas. The metaphor seems appropriate because good ideas, shit … even great ideas, do not “win the day” all on their own. 99% of the time they need to battle their way through a variety of well-placed and ill placed obstacles.

I think I was really lucky that I learned this lesson very early in my career.

I learned by watching others, who had good ideas, champion them alone seeking persona glory … and watching a good idea die.

I learned by championing what I thought were good ideas with the wrong people … and watching a good idea die.

I learned by watching others, who had a good idea and a good team, champion an idea and defend it, fight for it and see it stand at the end … alive & kicking.

My sense is that this learning affected how I hired people when I was a group leader. I wanted people who had ideas and who wanted to champion ideas and who was willing to set aside some personal glory for the sake of insuring the idea didn’t die.

Anyway.

I know many military people but have never been in the military.

I imagine when you are on the battlefield you are standing as close to the one who can shoot the straightest and will shoot when needed … regardless of whether they look like me or not.

I imagine when you are on the battlefield you are more likely to be saying to your fellow soldier … “stay away from Jack, he is one crazy motherfucker and is gonna get us killed” than worrying about whether some person has some quirk, or looks funny or lusts after Little Ponies when they go home at night.

I would suggest that survival, in general, has a nasty habit of eliminating distractions and having you focus on ‘who can do the job.”

I would suggest that if you care about ideas in business that survival of your ideas, in general, has a nasty habit of eliminating distractions and having you end up focusing on “who can do the job.”

I admit.

As a person I don’t get racism, I don’t get xenophobia, I don’t get discrimination, I don’t get any of that stuff. I just think anyone who gets caught up in all that is caught up in some bullshit. And bullshit has no place if you are interested in progress … let alone surviving.

I admit.

As a business person I don’t get racism, I don’t get xenophobia, I don’t get discrimination, I don’t get any of that stuff. I just think anyone who gets caught up in all that is caught up in some bullshit. And bullshit has no place if you are interested in the progress of your ideas … let alone the survival of your ideas.

I admit.

If you want to succeed in business … well … there really is only one line, one distinction: those who are smart enough to help you stay alive and those who are stupid enough to get you killed. Nothing else matters.

I almost called this “day <fill in the blank>of the shitshow” but I didn’t.

Look.

I am no genius but at the Trump 100 day mark I suggested the second 100 days would look a lot like the first 100 days <inconsistent, ineffective & incompetent> for several very sound, rational reasons. And as we close in on 200 days … well … I look like a genius. And … just to share my conclusion if you want to stop reading now … I envision the next 100 days just as hollow as the last 200 days for almost exactly the same reasons.

Until the main reason is solved <quality people in necessary staff positions> the lean, mean and obscenely incompetent current white house staff will remain incredibly competent at … well … doing nothing truly meaningful <but maintaining an appearance of disruptive thinkers>.

I will ignore the tweets … entertaining but absurd.

I will ignore the unnecessary hyperbole … entertaining and absurd.

I will ignore the rambling nonsensical monologues … not as entertaining and even more absurd.

I will ignore the bizarre foreign policy steps … entertaining to watch but absurdly dangerous in reality.

However … I will pay attention to leadership and results.

I have to assume despite the fact the President claims a finely tuned white house which has done more than any other resident since maybe FDR … this whole adventure has not been exactly how he planned it to go.

For someone who likes winning I am not so sure this kind of ‘winning’ is what he had in mind.

For someone who claims to be ‘the best negotiator’ <or at least better than anyone in government prior to him> I am not so sure this kind of ‘negotiating results’ or even public glimpses into his negotiating skills is what he had in mind.

For someone who claimed “I alone can fix it” I am not so sure this is the kind of ‘fixing’ he had in mind.

==============

“Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully or write poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.”

—

Donald Trump

==================

What has the administration done?

Well, yes, in the first 6 months some things truly have been done.

First, I will ignore the stock market. As every president prior to this absurd one recognized … the market has a mind of its own and, in general, ignores presidents <so attaching yourself to it and ts results is like pegging my success to some squirrel in my backyard>. But even with its general disregard for a President what the stock market has really learned is that Trump will not do as much as some had hoped for … and others feared. In the stock market’s mind this is called ‘clarity’ or certainty … and markets thrive when uncertainty diminishes <because then it is all about trends and not surprises>. Trump will not like to hear it but the central banks control the fate of stock markets more than he will ever want <so he should actually be cuddling up to central bank more>.

Second, I will ignore the Supreme Court Justice nomination because this was a “gimmee putt” for any Republican who stumbled their way into the oval office.

Just as I wouldn’t have credited Hillary this “win” was owned by whatever party won the white house not the individual in the white house.

Anyway.

The first 200 days.

Yes. Things done. I would call it “tinkering under the hood” stuff. Some executive orders, some cutting back on regulations, maybe taking some, what they would consider, unnecessary pieces out so the engine can run a little more effectively.

Most things have been ‘destruction’ type actions and not construction type actions.

And none of them are the bigger things which make radical shifts with regard to the country’s well-being.

Here is the problem with the Trump administration just tinkering under the hood. During the campaign and continuing into the first 200 days the administration, and Trump in particular, have claimed I have a Hyundai and I deserve a Ferrari.

Therefore, to date, they are just giving me a better running Hyundai and they still haven’t shown me <a> what my Ferrari is going to look like or <b> when I may expect to see my Ferrari in my driveway or even <c> what they are going to do to actually make it possible to have a Ferrari.

That alone makes for a fairly hollow first 200 days.

But why haven’t we received even those basic, what I would call, “map of things you should expect” stuff?

To date this administration has been defined by … well … a fog of dysfunction driven by a clammy inconsistent breeze called Donald J Trump which leaves us all feeling a little uneasy that something bad awaits us in the fucking clammy fog.

Look.

While I buy he is transactional … he is an inconsistent transactional person. He shows no sign of cohesive thinking, shows poor instincts and a complete lack of impulse control <which derails any necessary momentum every sane business leader knows you need to have to sustain any larger idea> and an extraordinarily immature naïve view of how the world really works <business, government and global> all buried in a pea like brain that does not envision what the end game looks like.

I score the last 200 days as relatively hollow and, once again, I see no signs of changes needed to get us out of hollow in and into substance.

I personally do not see him changing <becoming more engaged, take on more responsibility and try and lead rather than criticize> therefore the administration will live and die by the people who will end up in the administration <assuming they ever do join up>. Trump really has no policy – which is needed to lead without actually having to hold everyone’s hand — therefore he needs to <a> hire people who understand policy and can sell policy and <b> accumulate a group of policy makers who are aligned <not by loyalty but rather by ideology> so that the end puzzle gets built so it looks like a frickin’ puzzle and not just a bunch of random policies which look good in isolation but crappy when viewed together.

There needs to be a team, not a loyal team, but a qualified team for any chance to get out of this hollow hole we seem to get deeper and deeper into.

Yeah yeah yeah. Trumpeteers will come out of the woodwork and suggest “this is not Trump’s fault.”

They would be wrong.

I have been in so many companies that have told me to hire only to have my candidates get mired in the HR administrative mud for so long you are fairly sure they were just humoring you into believing you could actually hire someone that I can certainly feel the pain of hiring and open positions.

But this is not the case.

The congress has been slower in confirming Trump candidates but it is not because of democrats or congress inefficiency it is because Trump nominees are slow to complete paperwork or have to deal with conflict issues <they are often non-traditional appointees>. In addition the president has been even slower to send nominations to Congress.

The Trump administration is not eliminating the positions, Trump is just deciding not filling them <I assume he is not convinced they would actually provide value>.

Sure … there is a legitimate truth that government should be streamlined <positions eliminated> but not nominating needed people to implement your transactional ideology simply means … well … none of your frickin’ transactions get completed <and a business person of any competence whose career has been built off of transactions, and not vision, would know this>.

Anyway.

A couple things that become concerning beyond the staffing challenge as we move on to day 201 and beyond:

They market problems not solutions

I was foolish enough to subscribe to the White House Daily email. I will admit.

If I read it every day I would most likely slit my wrists. Every single email highlights a problem … disaster, failing, crime, horrible trade deals, being taken advantage of, the list goes on and on and on.

Shit.

In one email they actually suggested one of their own departments, The Congressional Budget Office, yeah … one of their OWN DEPARTMENTS … did not know how to do their job <… dude … they report to you …>.

They peddle problems and diminish people.

So far over 200 days they have invested 198 days <I made that number up> pounding us that we are living in a shithole created by shit-for-brains people … and, yet, they have offered us solutions worth a shit.

That’s not what leaders do … even transactional leaders. Even transactional leaders stand up and show us a list of the transactions we are aiming to get done. Some leaders <most in fact> would think of this as “how you should judge me” information.

This criticism is not about the 330 million citizens of the country <albeit we would benefit from knowing his> this is more about getting shit done in the next 100, 200 and 300 days. The people who have to do the work, do the policy, will be significantly more effective if you hand out a project list of shit I want to get done. if you have smart qualified people they will be like ants on sugar <all over it>.

I am not suggesting we need an administration that is in the “unicorns & rainbow” business but I do know the country would benefit if the administration would peddle solutions rather than problems but the administration itself would also benefit because … well … that is how good organizations actually get their employees to do good shit. It would be nice if they stopped thinking in terms of being in the destruction business and thought more about being in the construction business with regard to ideas & policies.

Without it … expect more empty ‘doom & gloom’ marketing of problems in the 100 days ahead.

Which leads me to …

Lack of vision

I hire managers to manage tactics … I hire leaders to share a vision. A transactional leader is a tactical leader.

And you can get away with that for a while but at some point the tactics need to fill some vision bucket <or they are simply scattered drops of water destined to dry up in the heat of time>.

Look.

I imagine the number one gripe against Obama was that he was too visionary and not tactical enough <in public>. But no one ever doubted his vision for America and Americans. People may have griped about some of the tactics but we always knew the ‘why’ of the tactical and transaction decisions. We bitched about ‘bad deals’ but understood why the deal was being pursued.

Without vision clarity 300 million plus people sit in their homes and go to work absent of really knowing “why.” Uhm. In the absence of why understanding everything begins to look random and people, in general, do not embrace random as a way of Life.

They need to address those 2 thing. Fast.

Those two things are going to haunt this presidency for 100’s of days unless they are addressed.

Those two things are basic Leadership 101 things.

I say that because while I am as detailed as possible with regard to how to fix the hollow presidency’s arc of behavior I remain concerned that the president, a self proclaimed successful business person, shows little signs he understands basic leadership behavior <and attitudes>. I admit … while I sensed his early on I never expected him to be this inept at basic leadership skills.

Being the president is not the same as the hollow branding crap Trump has built his riches off of. Shit. A real business leader demands more knowledge than that. Leadership requires discipline, hard work, focus, at least a basic understanding of the details they want their organization to move forward with and, as Trump himself said, a willingness to get everybody in a room and hammer out a deal.

That’s leadership.

Through the first 200 days of Trump’s presidency … uhm … he has exhibited none.

That is all on him.

After 200 days the president has managed to showcase a stunning total lack of ability to lead. And I use ‘stunning’ because he actually has a Congress completely under Republican control.

This stunning lack of leadership actually has repercussions beyond how people like I will measure 100 days to come. While we will offer ‘what was done’ report cards ad nausea the ultimate measurement , and battle, will be over character – not tangible wins & losses..

I am fairly sure in the bible <Corinthians ?> it says something like: Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

I state that because over the first 200 days there has been a stunning lack of truth coming from this White House which appears to be a blatant attempt to corrupt the character of good men & women.

I have a thought piece coming up on how the Trump administration is building an alternative universe in a way that I am fairly sure not many of us in a free world have ever seen before <but I am familiar with it having read dozens of books on communist Soviet Union>.

They have subverted Fake News from meaning actually unsourced, completely made-up things like the Enquirer to news they simply do not like.

Transparency means sharing information only when asked and not done in a forthcoming way.

They have attempted to make honesty irrelevant by investing gobs of energy undermining anything & everything everyone else says <if no one is honest than honesty is in the eyes of the beholder>.

They have continued to construct such a stark alternative universe to what actually exists by using scraps of truth, using a language of their own making & using cult-like recruitment tactics so that normal everyday schmucks like you & I are offered such a stark contrast it becomes difficult to bridge between what they say and what we see.

In the end.

I will restate exactly what I said at the end of the 1st 100 days … suffice it to say that I see some fairly concerning hollowness. What I mean by that is after 100 days one could highlight a variety of empty spots which … well … will dog the administration from day 101 forward.

And while I would like to point out some specifics I think we would all like to let me conclude with the “issue to be resolved in order to eliminate future hollowness.”

I am not sure at 71 if Trump can actually attain what he really needs to be successful over the ensuing 100 day increments as a president – enlightenment.

The mind once enlightened cannot again become dark.

–

Thomas Paine, A Letter Addressed to the Abbe Raynal on the Affairs of North America

Beyond all the bizarre tweets, inappropriate speeches and overall adolescent behavior … he is a painful amateur leader. Painful in that even I, who has led but not to this level, cringe almost every day at the amateur mistakes he makes as a leader.

This amateurishness is a disease stalking the hallways of the White House. I say that because while it is clear to everyone but trump why ‘no one listens to him or shows loyalty to him’ it is not clear why some very talented knowledgeable leaders surrounding him aren’t building at least a semblance of a construct from which leadership could grow.

Trump must be a powerful disease to have infected true talent that much.

There are a bunch of things that could turn this bizarre ship around but one, and only one, thing truly matters – will President Trump ever permit his mind to be enlightened. For that is the path out of the darkness that his administration tries to convince us we all live in as well as some of the darker more ignorant & naïve aspects of the current administration’s behavior.

Lastly.

I don’t care if you voted for Trump or not … you have to admit this whole situation is bizarre and he is a seemingly bizarre human being.

You may not agree with me that he is a fool but I cannot find one person who doesn’t think this whole presidency so far is just fucking bizarre.

“Ninety percent of paid work is time-wasting crap. The world gets by on the other ten.”

―

John Derbyshire

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

================

Well.

How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?

Now.

To be clear.

I am going to talk about this from a business-to-business perspective and not the corner of the bar-to-‘a job’ perspective. That because from the corner of the bar, after a couple of beers, any of us can do any job better than the person who is currently doing it.

This is an “I have been in the workplace, I feel like I have had some success and … well … shit … I can do that job” perspective.

OK … I am chuckling a little, c’mon, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.

Ok.

To be fair.

I have never lacked in business confidence. I do not believe there is a business problem that cannot be solved and I also believe <with some realistic pragmatic goggles on> that there is not a problem I cannot solve if I hunker down and get all the information I need. This can make me aggravating to work with on occasion because … well … I make no apologies for “how I may repair things”.

But that shouldn’t be confused with believing I can do any job.

Ok.

Yeah.

I admit.

I am certainly guilty at points in my career where I have certainly thought “I could do that job” over a wide array of responsibilities and unrelated industries.

Note. I rarely thought I could do it better … just that I could do it.

……….. my MBA at Wake Forest experience ………..

I would say that my MBA experience, a great experience with great professors at Wake Forest, encouraged me to think this way. It was a case study program which inherently encouraged thinking skills over black & white discipline skills.

I tend to believe a good MBA program insures you know enough about a specific discipline to be … well … dangerous if you overestimate your own knowledge but effective enough to be able to understand the discipline to apply it in a general management scope.

Now.

In general, I think this attitude, on the positive side, permits you to make the leaps you have to make to jump into new jobs, new responsibilities and new positions.

In general, I think this attitude, on the negative side, can make you overlook some skills other people have as well as … at its worst … can put you in positions in which you will fail in a spectacular fashion.

I imagine as someone gets promoted, as I did, every step up showed me that there was a shitload I didn’t know overall, as well as about the responsibilities of a specific job, but at the same time it also continuously reinforced that I could … well … “do that job.”

Success in business is a double edged sword.

Conversely.

………. what you know versus what you do not know ………

As someone gets promoted they also can see that some people got their jobs not because they necessarily had the experience or skills for the job but simply because they had the appearance they could do the job.

You watched as these people invested gobs of energy trying to “fake it until they actually make it” or, worse, they realized they were in over their heads and invested even more energy simply maintaining a facade of bullshit to hide their hollowness.

I would also note that given your experience on the last thing I just shared that also encourages someone to believe they could … well … “do that job.”

The higher I got and the broader my experiences, my sense of “I cannot really do that job” increased with regard toward … well … the jobs I really shouldn’t do. It didn’t diminish my sense of ability to handle increased responsibility it simply made me more reflective of other skill sets and the reality of certain jobs.

To be clear.

There is a certain group of people who never reach this realization … they tend to be either sociopaths or oblivious narcissists … but they do exist.

Anyway.

My real realization on this topic came when I reached a general management position <and did some consulting>.

It was there that I recognized jobs are like icebergs.

90% of a job you never see until you actually do the job. And to successfully do the part you don’t see needs a couple of things … beyond the obvious ‘I need to be competent with regard to the specific skill itself’ aspect:

Attitude alignment

This attitude goes way beyond the simplistic “I can do the job.”

This attitude is more with regard to what you are actually good at.

As I have stated before I am more a renovator than a builder. That is a mindset. My attitude is just put me in a room with all the puzzle pieces and I can rearrange them, maybe polish off a couple, maybe smooth out some edges that no longer fit well … and put a different puzzle together that works better than the one that exists.

And then there are people who say ‘I envision a puzzle and build the pieces.”

Those are two different attitudes that, certainly, have some overlap but also, certainly, drive a different type of style and ability to succeed in one type of job versus another type of job. I believe many people are successful in their jobs, and new jobs, because they have the proper insight into themselves and position themselves well to take advantage of this insight.

I would also add that a leader who can see within a person’s ‘skill set’ to recognize this attitude will also be the type who can hire incredibly effectively.

Not all leaders and hirers can. some simply see the façade and surface abilities and believe they are easily transferable and … well … hire them believing anyone can do the job if they have that appearance of a type of surface skill set.

The less-than-obvious skill set

… example of under the radar understanding (Juran Institute) …

Each skill, each specialty, has layers to its depth & breadth. Let’s say this is the “art” of the skill <I sometimes refer to it as “the shadow of your skill”>.

When you are a junior person you are demanded day in and day out to craft your pragmatic ‘non-artistic’ skills. You learn how to screw screws into holes efficiently and hammer nails into their proper places effectively.

As you gain seniority you are demanded to start incorporating the art aspects of your craft. I like to explain this as you have to learn to be more of an architect of your department, skill and specialty. By the way … not everyone can do his and not every department head is good at this and it tends to start filtering out those who move on to the next level … general management.

And if you move up even more into general management you are demanded to gain some skills in the “art” of combining all the skills into the overall progress of a company beyond the simplistic “are each department doing their fucking job.”

In general the biggest difference between thinking you can do a job and actually being able to do the job is your less than obvious skill set. For example … I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a conference room with a CFO who has displayed a skill set that … well … made me think “shit, this company is lucky to have them” not because they knew all the accounting mumbo jumbo but because they knew how to wield account skills in ways that the company benefited beyond accounting.

Pick your C-level title and I would say the same thing.

At the corner of the bar you have no clue whether you have this less than obvious skill set and if you actually have the experience you may only have a sense of whether this skill set exists. This is an intangible, however, 90% of the time this intangible arises from some relevant experience <maybe not within that specific discipline but a discipline nonetheless> … so your experience does matter.

So.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, we have a president who believes anyone can do any job and keeps hiring people who may be smart <and may not be … because I, frankly, question whether the President is smart> for positions they have no or little qualifications for that position.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, as a business guy I know you cannot do a job simply because you say “I can do that job” and that experience really does matter and that simply because you believe something … <sigh> … does not make it so.

I will say that I have learned this lesson the hard way and it permits me to be able to call a bullshitter a bullshitter and to be able to point out that some roles & responsibilities dictate at least some relevant experience in order to be effective & efficient.

Just because you think you can “do that job” does not mean you can actually “do that job.” It takes some self-awareness to know that.

The lack of self-awareness has a ripple effect.

In a bar your lack of self-awareness can create a range of responses – some chuckles, out right laughter of disbelief and maybe even some aggravation if it inches into what some of the people actually do sitting at the table.

In a business your lack of self-awareness can create … well … some real business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and … well … that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.

In business you get fired for that shit.

In a presidency your lack of self-awareness can create some real country repercussions – and we are seeing some of that lack of effectiveness now.

“Possibly,” Jace said, “but you do have to admit that the majority of things are.”

―

Cassandra Clare

===========

“Who knows himself a braggart, let him fear this, for it will come to pass that every braggart shall be found an ass.”

―

William Shakespeare

=====================

“Or, rather, let us be more simple and less vain.”

―

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

============

So.

We all have worked with assholes.

We all have also most likely worked with egotistical assholes.

And, unfortunately, we all have most likely worked with competent egotistical assholes. This is the particular type of asshole who actually kind of knows their shit, is overly satisfied with their competence, tells everyone who good they are and says all of this no matter what has actually happened <good or bad>or whether it is actually reflective of reality.

I have never really worked for anyone like this <fortunately> but I do know from experience that these people particularly suck to work with because, yeah, they don’t completely suck from a functional professional standpoint … so you cannot completely ignore them and, even worse, they may actually even have some specific skill you may need at some point.

What makes it suck for you is that they have some serious flaws <not that they would ever admit it> and that they will take credit for anything and everything they can, they will multiply wins in exaggerated results and effort and diminish, if not even blame others, for lack of successes.

They are, and always will be, the biggest self-promoters <assholes> you will ever encounter.

They are, and always will be, the biggest selective users of facts and specifics to showcase whatever self-style & strength they want to portray <their own assholedness>.

They are a legend in their own mind <and an asshole to the rest of us>.

But, at their best, they are not only competent but can actually contribute.

These assholes are tougher to deal with and manage than the incompetent. You can ignore the incompetent <or the ‘less than useful’ or the “beyond their sell-by date’ people>.

Once again … I have never had to report to an incompetent blowhard <or an incompetent non blowhard> but I have had several “senior people who were beyond their sell-by date” who you never permitted in a meeting by themselves <for fear of what they would say or promise> and you always tried to diplomatically curb their responsibilities and impact.

They were not always truly assholes or incompetent just ‘less than desired usefulness’ for the business needs.

But the competent blowhards are a bear to deal with.

You are constantly sitting there thinking … “Jesus … wouldn’t it be terrific to be able to reap the rewards without putting up with the blowhard bullshit?”

I actually found an article suggesting some tips on how you can “harness the superb results these folks generate without having to put up with their acting out.”

Whew.

That article was off base. You cannot harness a blowhard … competent or incompetent.

An egotistical competent person is … well … an egotistical <typically “narcissistic”> competent blowhard asshole and there is little to get around that.

You just figure out how to get around them, use them the best you can and take them head on strategically <knowing you cannot take them head on all the time>.

To be clear.

I am using “asshole” loosely here. As someone noted somewhere … the term “asshole” is also used as a euphemistic reference to people whom we classify as “disagreeable.”

A blowhard is disagreeable but so can a lot of good people who aren’t narcissistic. Shit. Contrarians can portray some asshole tendencies <see myself as a prime example> but not all contrarians are fucking egotistical self-promoting blowhards.

I could argue that since each of us is an asshole to someone the term is always relative. In other words, one person’s asshole can be another person’s hero.

Therefore … in my eyes … it takes a lot of effort to be a competent asshole.

Incompetent assholes don’t know that they are assholes.

Competent assholes KNOW that they are assholes.

I am writing this because, unfortunately, this is a conversation we all have in business. Egomaniac assholes are in every business. We have to deal with them and the reality is that sometimes they are in senior management.

They may actually be competent but they are manipulative, obsessive, and aggravatingly boastful and far too often bullies.

They may actually have some aspects of competence and use it to throw anyone around them who also shows signs of threatening competence under the bus at any given opportunity.

They actually do it under the guise of “creating a competitive always improving environment” when they are really simply insecure assholes who want to diminish anyone around them so they look bigger & better.

—————————————–

Hayakawa: Use the Right Word:

By definition ‘boast’ suggests a self-important and tasteless pointing out of one’s own successes.

Occasionally the word can refer to self-congratulation for a victory not yet won. Brag intensifies the note of tastelessness in boast, suggesting limitless conceit and, possibly, inaccuracy of the claims being made – bragging about imaginary exploits. And then there is ‘crowing’ which suggests a noisy or vociferous bragging of an extremely offensive kind. And ‘gloating’? Gloating is an intensification of crow – although it need not be verbal and sometimes suggests taunting someone that one has bested.

By definition: egomania

…. an obsessive preoccupation with one’s self and applies to someone who follows their own ungoverned impulses and is possessed by delusions of personal greatness and feels a lack of appreciation.

——————————————

Look.

I don’t mind a manager with a healthy sense of ego, but the true competent blowhards are best to avoid if possible because they have elements of toxicity.

In Toxic Workers , a new Harvard Business School working paper, Michael Housman and Dylan Minor look at the paradox of “superstar” workers who outperform their colleagues by 2:1 or more, but who are “toxic” — awful to work with and be around.

The connection between toxicity and productivity has been validated in several studies, but the question that Housman and Minor set out to answer is, “are 1%, superstar workers worth the trouble they cause in the workplace?”

Using a clever empirical methodology, they demonstrate that, basically, you shouldn’t work with assholes. It’s better to hire two average employees than to keep one “superstar” on the payroll, once you factor in the disruption that your talented jerk wreaks on their colleagues.

Simplistically the blowhards distort things. They exaggerate good, diminish bad, consistently use a made up unique formula of uncertainties & lack of clarity, offer alternatives <facts & universes> and serve to only create difficulties in exactly describing what is, and isn’t, actually happening.

While accomplishing some things, which if discussed like a normal human being everyone would be fine with, the abnormal human being says shit like: “I don’t think there’s ever been anyone who in this short period of time has done what I’ve done.”

Uhm.

Unfortunately for whoever says this there is typically some actual proof that someone somewhere has actually achieved a lot more. But that really doesn’t matter to this type of person … all they have to do is do enough and make it look hopeful enough that a group of employees ignore the hyperbole and focus on the fact someone has done something.

By the way.

What makes this truly toxic is the fact the competent non-blowhards around this person start ignoring the blowhard and just doing their own thing <and his because even more toxic to a business the more senior the blowhard is>.

I imagine my point here is that we all know someone at work whose biggest fan is himself/herself. They exaggerate all their contributions and diminish & deflect any blame or negatives.

Those people make it really difficult to compliment. Our first instinct is to try and deflate <or ‘right-size’> accomplishments so that even good gets diminished so it doesn’t get exaggerated. Unfortunately his sometimes means that even when credit is due the person has just made it hard for us to WANT to give them credit.

=============

“Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter.”

—

African proverb

===

Regardless.

We all know some of these people who do not recognize that they are one of those people.

Particularly in business.

They aren’t psychopaths and they aren’t the kind of assholes that are raging assholes … these are just the assholes oblivious to their assholedness. Suffice it to say far and away the number one way they justify their existence is “the end justifies the means.”

“But I made the numbers.”

“We won.”

“We finished.”

All the while ignoring the carnage left behind.

The carnage can be lost employees, pissed off employees, tired <emotionally and physically> employees, angry peers and disappointed or abused partners.

<lost>

They couldn’t keep up or they were not good enough <good they are gone … we weed out those who can’t keep up>.

<pissed off>

You can’t always pamper people to get them across the finish line <they like me because they know it is all done with ‘tough love’>.

<tired>

I pushed them beyond what they thought they could do <they won’t be angry once they see how I helped them realize their potential>.

<peers>

The other managers don’t recognize what it takes to get it done <my project was more important and they won’t be angry once they see the result and how the team responded …or … I am showing them how it should be done>.

<partners>

They have good intentions but I need to keep them focused on our priorities and objectives and needs <they work for us and need us more than we need them>.

Those are the tricks of the trade of the competent blowhards.

Regardless.

Yes.

Success does matter.

No.

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t value ‘the kill’ or even ‘ability to effectively stalk the prey’ in business.

But … Yes.

I do believe how you kill or stalk matters.

Look.

Blowhards can try and convince us of competence in a variety of ways … they can showcase fulfilling promises which does not show the actions of a skilled CEO but rather a bumbling overwhelmed CEO focused on showing action to try and cover up incompetence.

I say that because even bumbling incompetent CEO’s can do some things right in a flurry of ‘doing shit.’ I say that because even a semi-incoherent senior business person can do some things right AND justify it in some fairly creative common sense sounding ways.

The following is something I found somewhere <I cannot find where> from someone who actually responded to “being an asshole manager” which showcase how a competent asshole business person can quite easily justify their actions.

Please note that there is a strong thread of truly competent thoughts.

Please note that if I were so inclined I could go back through every point and slice out the slightly self-righteous aspects and showcase how you can actually be competent and not an asshole AND not pamper your employees’ every whim … but I will not.

=======

…. not sure how you define asshole, but I suppose being blunt, efficient, and unable to cater to every employee’s wants (not needs) goes a long way. I go out of my way to reward my best employees, give them the resources they need, approve their time off outside of work, etc. I take a pedagogical approach to my role, passing knowledge to my employees that will help them advance their careers (and make my job easier). Yet, I’m still the asshole.

Here are some reasons I’m an asshole manager:

I’m responsible for making a diverse group of people with varying job roles work together. Try coming up with one rule or guideline that makes everyone happy.

Some employees only work as hard as they have to. And they hate it when you ask them to do more.

Some employees (often the ones who only do the bare minimum) expect to be promoted just for showing up. You can print them a crystal clear roadmap to success within your company, and they’ll still paddle along, doing nothing to distinguish themselves, then ask to be supervisor.

Ingratitude is the status quo. Once, everyone in the department got tiny raises (three figures). The reason they were tiny is because we shifted our fiscal year; there was a tiny pool for compensation increases. Because someone had left, I was able to get every one of my employees a raise larger than the 1.5% average everyone in the company had to adhere to. I know it’s not a lot, but I put in a lot of effort to make their tiny raises a little less tiny. The fact they got more than the average was clearly explained to them. The response: the raises “were a slap in the face.” Fine. Next time, we’ll spend the money on a clever fucking food truck half of you won’t like.

As a manager, much of your employee’s well-being (compensation, promotion, career growth) depends on you. At the same time, this isn’t a day care center; it’s a business, and my job is to get my employees to do their jobs. That’s a hell of burden, and it makes me less likely to be everyone’s buddy when instead I have to be fair and compassionate, but also directive and efficient.

In the same vein, employees know how much power you have over things like compensation, so they’re never, ever totally honest with you. Personality problems I constantly hear about third-hand magically disappear when I’m leading from the floor. Also, employees will admit to making small mistakes, which upon five seconds of investigation, turn out to be related to much larger mistakes they say nothing about.

Paranoia is the status quo. I can’t explain to employee #1 why I wrote employee #2 up. That would be unprofessional, and would betray the disciplined employee’s trust. Yet if it appears on the surface that I’m being unfair, then the conspiracy theorists kick in and all of a sudden I’m playing favorites. Example: Two employees don’t show up to work. One is written up. The first employee has a documented record of excessively calling in sick, and misses work yet again, without notice. The other, who has an exemplary attendance record, has a family emergency and calls into work in advance. The former would get written up before the latter every time. Employees aren’t privy to these details, so they form their own conclusions baked in resentment. And God help you if the employee who incorrectly thinks they’re being treated unfairly is a woman or a minority.

You can’t listen to music with the N-word in it. You can’t describe the hot girl you met. You can’t tell off-color jokes, listen to Howard Stern, or share clips of that R-rated stand-up comedian. I’m going to write you up for breaking those rules. You may even get fired. The alternative is me losing my job because I tolerated a hostile work environment. So yes, we’re a friendly, down-to-earth, casual company…until tone-deaf legal standards force us to behave otherwise.

Millennials, calling into work because you’re stressed isn’t a good excuse. Especially if it happens exclusively on Fridays and Mondays. I’m going to call you out on it.

When HR makes a decision to fire you, I’m the one who breaks the news. When finance says we can’t afford that tool to make your job easier, I’m the one who communicates the message. Part of my job is to be the face of the company to you. Your bridge to the massive bureaucracy. Of course I’m going to sound like an asshole to you. And no, I don’t have time to make you feel better about it. So put my picture on the dartboard. Slander me if it makes you feel better about things. As long as you’re doing your job and I’m doing my best to treat you fairly and humanely, the rest is your problem.

============

So.

That sounded fairly reasonable, didn’t it?

I chuckled a little and stopped myself from going back and showing the author where they were … well … as asshole <but still pointing out their competence>.

Being a manager and a leader is not easy. If it were then … well … not only could anyone be one anyone could actually be a good one.

I shared the 10 thoughts above because the difference between an asshole leader, and a competent non asshole leader, can often be defined in shades … not vivid colors <although the result often can be viewed in vivid displays of rich & royal hues>.

And that vivid comparison truly comes to Life if you are viewing a competent arrogant blowhard.

I was an okay manager & leader. I did some things okay and some things not so okay. I can honestly say I did get better at it as time went on and I am much better now, and how I discuss leadership, than I was even 5 years ago.

I am much better at identifying incompetence and the characteristics one should look at in defining and judging managers and leaders than I was at the beginning of my career <at the beginning it was just “boy, that feel and looks wrong” and now it is “let me point out the five things which are wrong that makes it feel wrong.”

What I can tell you is that you don’t need me to point out an arrogant, narcissistic, semi-competent blowhard. You can see them a mile away and even if you just “feel it” you are more than likely right.

An asshole is an asshole. Once you have seen an asshole and felt what it is like to be around an asshole … well … you will never forget the feeling.

==================

“Besides, nowadays, almost all capable people are terribly afraid of being ridiculous, and are miserable because of it.”

“How many people long for that “past, simpler, and better world,” I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?”

–

R.A. Salvatore

===========

“There is a trail of existence that follows everyone, threads of life that people spin out and leave behind wherever they go. Threads cross all the time. Threads cross and cross again – time and place if in no other way – even when the people appear unaware of each other. No one pays attention to others around them unless the overlap happens again. Sometimes, people miss each other only by a few seconds, yet they are connected.

Sometimes place is the reason for the overlap but time is not. Sometimes the overlap is purposeful other times happenstance.

The threads are there, no matter. Ah. When they glow, they are one destiny.”

–

Inspector O

========================

So.

In general, 95+% of us think the past was simpler … or … let’s say we think it was less tangled.

In general, 95+% of us view the present as complicated, complex and peppered with shit we never had to deal with in the past … in other words … a tangled mess.

Maybe we should vie it differently.

Maybe we should view us, the individual, as more complicated, more complex and more peppered with shit than we were in the past.

Maybe we have forgotten the past when we did what we felt was right versus wrong & what felt good and not bad without getting tangled up in a whole bunch of … well … things Life whispers and shouts into our ear.

Maybe it isn’t Life that is more complex … it is us … we are tangled up.

Now.

In my eyes … life has a nasty habit of getting us all tangled up.

I will not say “confuse us” it more likely just twists us pretzel-like between suggesting right things to do, wrong things to do, right ways to do, wrong ways to do and … well … what you are supposed to like versus what you actually do like.

All of this tangling makes us view the world as the villain <or the ‘tangler’ as it were>.

Wrong.

Stop for a second and admit that about maybe we are the ‘tangler.’

Why do I say that?

The world is what it is. We either respond to the world or we don’t.

We either accommodate the world or we don’t.

We do everything the world suggests or we don’t.

I say that because Life is indifferent to us. It chugs along in a fairly consistently inconsistent way in that it remains linear while everyone crisscrosses each other, all the experiences and moments crisscross, and good decisions and bad decisions made by everyone crisscross … meaning that all of that gets tangled up … in every moment.

The more people we meet … the more paths & branches crisscross … and cross again.

It becomes a tangled confusion of so many choices and paths and interlinked branches it becomes easy to think of it all as chaos.

Especially if you think of people and events as threads and not dots in a moment in time.

Yeah.

As your path crosses with others … others who are also making choices … choices of strangers, family, friends, enemies, whomever … their choices do affect our path. And then we walk in to this multidimensional space bombarded with molecules of other’s choices and contextual environment situational type stuff and … uhm … we have to make a choice.

And that is where we really get all tangled up.

While, yes, we have to make a shitload of ongoing choices … small and large and every size in between … the majority of them we make more difficult than we have to. this most often happens with good intentions in that we try and figure out the “best” choice <in the midst of all this chaos swirling around us> and we … well … overthink.

Then it gets worse.

We look to the past and it appears to be a neat set of choices made … and not made. It often appears in a nice schematic of context in which we simplistically made some choice based on what we saw and experienced.

Oh <nuts>.

The reality is that we made some choice in some situation which looked a shitload like what it does in the present <and what most likely looks like the future> … it appears to look a lot like sheer chaos — a snarled thread of paths and choices.

Oh <shit>.

We get all tangled up.

Okay.

Let me try and help.

In each tangled chaotic web of events, threads and paths … everything is actually bounded by the practical — the practical aspect of what you can actually do … and cannot do … within the choices you make.

This is the actual reality of what can be done.

This is simplicity.

This is the untangled you.

And if you actually untangle you will find some really good decisions and choices available for you. I am not suggesting it will make the repercussions black & white but … well … shit … I do not believe our Life, or destiny, is pre-ordained in a black & white definition anyway. I tend to believe Life is just a huge map of possibilities in which you kind of forge your way through a relatively chaotic Life by being the best tangled you.

Look.

I like … no … love the thought that we get tugged by duty <right thing to do> versus desire <some type of self-gratification … spanning from full indulgence to full altruism> as we make all these choices.

And while we certainly can be impacted by others or ‘things out of our control’ … what remains in our control, always, is the untangled choice.

The choice to do what we may with the circumstances at hand.

The choice remains with us.

The time, the moment, demands one thing … to tangle or untangle.

Choose to untangle yourself .. it will most likely make you better and simpler.

———————————–

Alvin Toffler thought:

Two apparently contrasting images of the future grip the popular imagination today. Most people to the extent that they bother to think about the future at all … assume the world they know will last indefinitely. They find it difficult to Imagine a truly different way of life for themselves, let alone a totally new civilization. Of course they recognize that things are changing. But they assume today’s changes will somehow pass them by and that nothing will shake the familiar economic framework and political structure. They confidently expect the future to continue the present.

This straight-line thinking comes in various packages. At one level it appears as an unexamined assumption lying behind the decisions of businessmen, teachers, parents, and politicians. At a more sophisticated level it comes dressed up hi statistics, computerized data, and forecasters jargon.

Either way it adds up to a vision of a future world that is essentially “more of the same.”

It ministers to some great need, it performs some great service, not for itself, but for others…or failing therein, it ceases to be profitable and ceases to exist.”

–

Calvin Coolidge

==================

“Let’s be honest. There’s not a business anywhere that is without problems. Business is complicated and imperfect. Every business everywhere is staffed with imperfect human beings and exists by providing a product or service to other imperfect human beings.”

–

Bob Parsons

=========================

On Bastille Day it seems appropriate to take a minute and discuss “fraternite” in business.

Yeah.

Today is the French National Day, the 14th of July, or … le 14 juillet.

By the way … nobody in France calls it Bastille Day <that is a creation of the American mind>. The French are celebrating what is called Fête de la Fédération <the National Celebration> and commonly Le quatorze juillet <the fourteenth of July>. The national holiday is about national pride: the national bleu-blanc-rouge flag and the French values of Liberté, Fraternité and Egalité.

French for “liberty, equality, fraternity <brotherhood>” … the national motto of France

Regardless.

Inevitably a great organization exhibits both efficient AND effective progress.

What typically creates that combination is part discipline, part structure, part leadership … all glued together by “fraternité”.

That ‘glue’ is most often discussed in the American business world as ‘a vision’ or maybe ‘a purpose’. We do so because we Americans hate any kind of lack of specificity. But the truth is that the most common bond of a great organization is a more nebulous concept … one of “fraternité”.

Or.

“Any man aspires to liberty, to equality, but he cannot achieve it without the assistance of other men, without fraternity.”

(Napoleon)

Oddly enough, while this sounds relatively common sense, I kind of feel like business itself needs a revolution to overturn the current thinking to accommodate what should be common sense.

What do I mean?

Current business is kind of in a wacky spot.

It talks a lot about vision and purpose as if they are “things” … like maybe a lighthouse anyone can see as they bob around the chaotic sea of business life to find a way home.

By the way … I would argue that is a very individualistic thought — “I can find my way home” type thought – and not really a team thought <but that could quite easily be debated>.

Regardless.

Fraternity is more like “everyone not only knowing what they need to do to keep the ship afloat but actually pitching in whether needed or not because they love the ship itself.”

That may sound like some wacky nuance but I have to warn people that revolutions can kind of gain some momentum off of some fairly wacky things on occasion.

And, by the way, that is a more nebulous “I feel this way” aspect of organizational culture and, as noted many times, if it cannot be measured or indexed or scored … most older leaders into today’s business just don’t like that kind of shit.

Anyway.

Not to beat this metaphor to death but I do believe we need a semi-revolution in the way business organizations are created and run and managed.

I think we may need that revolution because “fraternité” just ain’t the way business is run as a core principle. And, yes, it should be viewed as a “core” principle because … uhm … when discipline falls apart, when structure falls apart, when leadership falls apart … what keeps you on the battlefield and fighting is … yeah … “fraternité.”

On a bigger organizational level I worry about how an idea like this is getting suffocated by generational issues <younger people desire something and older people think they know the best> and maybe an outcome-is-the-only-thing-that-matters versus a belief business should incorporate altruistic aspects.

Both of those conflicts are HUGE issues. Issues I have written about in 1200+ word thought pieces … individually.

I actually believe we need some revolutionary thinking on the latter mre than the former.

To me we have a bunch of people who look at business and turn away because … well … I fear that they only believe they can change the world through more altruistic pursuits and not traditional business.

And, yes, they are important and good pursuits … but from a larger perspective … business drives the world. Business makes shit that makes lives easier and healthier and impacts the home and life in ways that it is difficult to imagine let alone outline in a few words.

Somehow … someway … we need to insert the ‘believers of principles’ into the business world with all of their ambition and hope … and remind them – and empower them – that they can change the world.

That they can make the world a better place.

They can make society and people and lives better.

And they can do it in business … not just altruistic career opportunities.

And if we do that … and do that well … I tend o believe we will build more organizations driven at its core by a sense of “fraternité” rather than a bunch of documents setting out some guiding principles, vision and purpose which everyone says “okay … let’s do that.”

It is quite possible that I am talking about ‘the soul’ of an organization.

What I do know is that … well … read the following quote:

====================

“I have found no greater satisfaction than achieving success through honest dealing and strict adherence to the view that, for you to gain, those you deal with should gain as well.”

–

Alan Greenspan

===============================

I do believe we need to be drawing some lines in business. And I don’t mean company handbook type lines or even some well-crafted ‘lines’ in “how we conduct our business” or “who we are” but maybe they are more lines with regard to some unwritten principles.

I say that because when you can gather a group of people together who share a strong set of principles … well … they will walk straight into a hail of bullets to not only survive but to get good shit done.

==========

“Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.

–

Oscar Wilde

===========

Now.

Business absolutely makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle. It can kind of suffocate your principles in between the pragmatic aspects of getting shit done <discipline & structure> and the faux burden of some vision or grander purpose which “you know is important to us therefore it should be important to you.”

Frankly, when suffocated by these bookends you don’t have a lot of elbow room for any type of true, intangible, unsolicited camaraderie.

The fraternité is more forced than natural.

And when it is not natural it is not as strong.

Fraternité in business.

I believe we have forgotten this.

And while I do believe many of us have forgotten how to draw lines with regard to our principles I tend to believe business, in general, has simply decided to just draw lines <in a box in fact> and say “there you go” … there are your principles and rules for comraderie.

That is kind of whack.

Look.

I can honestly tell you that being a senior leader in a business and organization you like <you do not have to love> may be one of the greatest experiences anyone can ever have. And what makes that experience truly great is when you are fortunate enough to foster something intangible, something that really cannot be measured, and something which doesn’t earn you some performance bonus at the end of the year … it is when you stumble upon the sense of fraternité.

I am sure some organizational guru will send me a link to “steps to build a fraternité organization” and … well … good for them. I tend to believe this is one of those soul aspects, intangible things, that is created less by some “how to” guide or some formula and more by simple good intentions combined with some good discipline, construct and leadership.

This is what I thought about today, July 14th, as I thought about the national motto of France “liberty, equality, fraternity <brotherhood>”.

With that I imagine I should end with where I began … no enterprise can exist for itself alone. That is the foundation for … well … a fraternité organization.

“Maybe growing up was really nothing more than growing away: from your old life, from your old self, from all those things that kept you tethered to your past.”

—-

Jennifer E. Smith

================

Forever is a long, long time.

And has a way of changing things.

—-

The Fox and the Hound

========================

Ok.

Forever.

Forever is about time and it isn’t. What I mean is we associate forever with time and, yet, it is timeless so time … in a slightly absurd twist of truth … is almost irrelevant to ‘forever.’

But.

We always associate Forever with a long, long time.

And time is a funny thing.

It can ebb and flow all within a finite amount of time.

It can increase speed and decrease speed and yet remain an extremely identifiable finite amount of time.

It can take years of asking and creating questions … and a second to answer everything.

Forever is all of that and more.

That said.

While I think we get better with the concept of forever as we get older I am fairly sure we don’t really realize how vast forever is.

And what I mean by that is it seemingly contains everything and, yet, all of a sudden … we realize that we will not last forever and it runs the risk of containing … uh oh … nothing.

Yeah.

Basically, being the type of outcome oriented people we are; we actually try and apply some measurement to forever.

Yeah.

But think about it.

Forever is everything until it is nothing.

Forever is hope until it is emptied of everything … and hope no longer exists.

All that said.

I, personally, wish the word didn’t exist. To me it captures everything bad about false hope and, therefore, provides a nice well wrapped excuse for us to not face what Emerson suggests “God offers to every mind its choice between truth & repose. Take which you please – you can never have both.”

The whole idea of forever far too often tethers us to our past or inertia. Neither of which is very productive.

While I do believe growing up, for those who do actually grow up, is more like growing away … or unlearning shit … I also believe growing up, more often than not, is growing away from the belief in forever.

In other words … we grow away from infiniteness and grow closer to an understanding of finiteness.

I actually don’t think that is a bad thing. It most likely actually helps us live Life a little better and maybe even manage Life choices and behavior a little better.

==============

“Let me tell you a truth … no matter what choice you make, it doesn’t define you.

Not forever.

People can make bad choices and change their minds and hearts and do good things later; just as people can make good choices and then turn around and walk a bad path. No choice we make lasts our whole life. If there’s ever a choice you’ve made that you no longer agree with, you can make another choice.”

–

Jonathan Maberry

============

Look.

Life is a mixed bag of contradictory events, outcomes and feelings all of which can careen through your Life with wild abandon like a bunch of bulls in your china shop.

This means in assessing forever it really isn’t like assessing a balance sheet but more like trying to judge a handful of marbles rolling around a tilting table.

The good news on that is, more often than not, bad shit is not indicative of Life Armageddon and good shit is not indicative of future ongoing bliss.

Forever is simply an endless array of moments crashing into each other and away from each other in which present moments look bigger than they truly are and then … well …than we have another moment.

And another.

And, well, another.

Until we don’t have any moments left.

And in the end we most likely look back at all the moments in what we deemed our forever and if we are lucky, and did things the best we could whenever we could, we most likely see that our forever is filled with somethings that don’t look too bad.

I sometimes believe this is a lesson learned of experience.

That said.

Forever is an empty concept.

It can only be filled if you actively fill it with something. you have to choose between truth or repose … you cannot have both.

Anyway.

Here is what I do know about forever.

It doesn’t really exist to an everyday schmuck like me and my Life. It only exists in the minds of astrophysicist and … well … smart intellectual types in some theoretical way.

Time is finite in everyday Life and that reality smacks us in the face each and every day. It is a reality in which we tend to define forever in terms of minutes not eons.

Sure.

Everyday schmucks like me love the idea of forever <on some things>… and hate the idea of forever <on some things> … and constantly misapply the idea of forever to our time and, yet, all the while do our best to fucking kill the concept of forever in tiny scraps of time … choice by choice.

But I would argue until … well … my forever is done … that thinking about anything in terms of forever is a fool’s errand. It is foolish because if you think you have forever you will most likely remain tethered to the past and, well, forever is most likely best explored by growing up by growing away.